Agreements Against Public Policy
No agreement contrary to “public policy” may be applied by either party. Public policy is the “politics of the law”. The question whether or not an agreement is contrary to public policy must be transsible only on the basis of general principles and not by taking into account contractual conditions. Agreements that tend to create monopolies are contrary to public policy and are therefore invalid. However, in areas such as vegetables, monopoly rights may be granted to a person who excludes others. For example, A had committed a burglary and B had therefore charged A. The charge against A cannot be dismissed because of his restoration of the stolen property. Another example of an agreement contrary to public order would be an agreement to obtain a government job or a government name through corrupt means. Such a treaty would not be applicable. Such a contract is considered to be contrary to public policy, because if this practice were allowed, it would increase corruption and result in public services being inefficient and unreliable. The Privy Council in Raja Venkata Subhadrayamma Guru v.
Sree Pusapathi Venkapathi Raju[vi] decided that the court can only refuse the application of such agreements if the court sees that it is not made with a Bonafide object or that the reward appears to be blackmail and that Champerty and alimony in India are not illegal. A contractual condition could be contrary to public policy if the State has an interest in preventing compliance with the condition. The view on treaties contrary to public policy has evolved over time. For example, a contractual condition that can be maintained today could have been contrary to public policy in the past. One promises to exempt a company that prints and publishes a document from the consequences of any defamation it might publish in its newspaper. Here, A`s promise could not be kept if the company was forced to pay damages for the published defamation. These are agreements that totally or partially prohibit any party to the agreement from asserting its rights with respect to a contract that is, to that extent, invalid. . .